posted
That's fascinating, Dag. I had been given a similar impression as many others here. I am more interested in knowing the facts than believing in actions or motivations that didn't exist. I will keep in mind what you have said here.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, No he wasn't. He was specfically forbidden as part of his experiences with the Inquisition from writing or teaching the heliocentric model. The actual charge may have been scriptural interpretation (or as I was alway taught, saying that the Church didn't have the authority to talk about scientific matters) but he was not, as you said "free to say that the earth orbits the sun". If he had, he would have gone back in front of the Inquisition.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem.
quote:Dag, No he wasn't. He was specfically forbidden as part of his experiences with the Inquisition from writing or teaching the heliocentric model. The actual charge may have been scriptural interpretation (or as I was alway taught, saying that the Church didn't have the authority to talk about scientific matters) but he was not, as you said "free to say that the earth orbits the sun". If he had, he would have gone back in front of the Inquisition.
He was forbidden to teach it at all because he insisted on entering the theological grounds. Had he not done so, he would never have been prohibited from discussing it in the first place.
Gallileo was imprisoned for essentially violating a court order. The court order was an expansive remedy ordered because of the theological discourse, not the scientific one.
posted
I think that's an innaccurate assessment of the situation. The scientific question was an influencing condition. It can't be exluded. The church at the time was engaged in an aggressive campaign against the heliocentric model. Galileo's support of the heliocentric model was a contributing factor to his treatment by the Inquisition, even if the primary complaint was theological. I think not acknowledging this, of saying that it was only because of theological differences, ignores the tension between the scientific community and the Church at this time.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it's absolutely accurate. It might not be complete in your view, but he was absolutely not brought to the Inquisition because he taught the heliocentric model. He was brought to the Inquisition for challenging official teaching on scriptural interpretation. He was banned from teaching the heliocentric model because he refused to separate the theological questions from it.
posted
I don't have the sources I've read on it handy, but my understanding of the situation matches what Dag has shared here.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what you're suggesting implies that the Chruch was not working against the teaching of the heliocentric model by itself and was only concerned about it as it occured alongside theological matters. That is what I think is innaccurate. The Church was very much interested in the orthodoxy of the scientific community, even if they had no pretension to religious matters.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dag: "Actually, Galileo was imprisoned for refusing to cease publishing his interpretations of the Scriptures."
Dag: "I posted a link a while back. The charge was related to his interpretation of Scripture, based on his heliocentric beliefs."
In other words, he was free to say that the earth orbits the sun, but not to say that a particular scripture passage meant that the earth orbits the sun."
The language of the injunction does not mention Galileo's interpretation of Biblical text. Moreover, Galileo was prohibited from expressing "altogether the said opnion that the Sun is the center of the world":
quote: The said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsover, verbally or in writing.
According to the Papal Condemnation that sentenced Galileo to prison, Galileo's interpretation of the bible was one of several transgressions that lead to the injunction:
quote: Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for
holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves,
and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true;
and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning:
and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture.
Aside from the passage I highlighted, the Holy Office did not make any other references to Galileo's scriptural "glossing" in the rest of the document. In fact, the main reason for Galielo's sentnece appears to be this:
quote: And whereas a book has appeared here lately, printed in Florence last year, whose inscription showed that you were the author, the title being Dialogue by Galileo Galilei on the two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican; and whereas the Holy Congregation was informed that with the printing of this book the false opinion of the earth's motion and the sun's stability was being disseminated and taking hold more and more every day, the said book was diligently examined and found to violate explicitly the above-mentioned injunction given to you;
for in the same book you have defended the said opinion already condemned and so declared to your face, although in the said book you try by means of various subterfuges to give the impression of leaving it undecided and labeled as probable; this is still a very serious error since there is no way an opinion declared and defined contrary to divine Scripture may be probable. Papal Condemnation
In Galileo's Recantation, which was his last hope to escape punishment, Galileo stated that his alleged heresy was based on his astronomical theory. He did not mention or apologize for misinterpreting the Bible:
quote: But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed a book in which I discuss this doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these;
and for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves
posted
Dag, What falls under the definition of coercive force? They both banned and destroyed books containing this theory. They also endevoured to make it uncomfortable for anyone teaching the theory.
As far as I know, they didn't bring people before the Inquisition with teaching heliocentrism as the sole reason, but they did use what I would consider coercive force to combat the theory.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Have you ever seen Annie Hall? Remember the scene when they are standing in line for the movie listening to the professor try to impress his date with his insights into the work of a particular filmmaker, and Woody Allen gets so sick of listening to it he gets in a dhouting match with the guy. Finally he says
"You think you know about (filmmaker whose name I can't remember)? Well I just happen to have him right over here!"
At which point he walks over and pulls the filmmaker out from behind a floor display and brings him over to humiliate the professor?
Just wondering. You made me smile.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren, very nice research. But none of it changes the essential truth of the matter.
Galileo was not prosecuted until he met scriptural objections to the heliocentric theory with his own scriptural interpretations. At the time, this was a prosecutable offense. Because he did this, he was issued an injunction to cease teaching the heliocentric theory at all. Had he not done that, he would not have been prosecuted. The injunction was issued because Galileo showed his unwillingness to limit the scope of his teachins, and his name had already been associated with what was considered heresy.
When he violated the injunction, it was akin to someone violating parole. An act he would not have been imprisoned for was illegal precisely because of his prior crimes.
The elements of the crime for which he was convicted were: 1) Improper interpretation of the scripture 2) with intent to propogate 3) a "false" doctrine.
The actus reus is improper interpretation of the scripture. The punishment (actually, remedial action), was to ban Galileo from propogating the "false" doctrine which had now become tied to the improper interpretation of scripture.
The imprisonment was basically for contempt - for violating the remedial order above. The elements of contempt would be: 1) knowing or wilful 2) violation 3) of a properly issued order of the court.
The act he committed to place himself under control of this order was "improper interpretation of the scripture."
Dagonee Edit: As I said before, it's not like this necessarily makes the Church look any better in this matter.
posted
No, the catholic church doesn't come out smelling like roses, but I think that ti's an important distinction to understand, and one that rarely is.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is amazing to me is that even after being shown a primary source that flat out contradicts your factual position, Dag still thinks he can continue to state it as fact without any sources at all. I'm even on your side in this debate, Dag, but... geez.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What in Beren's facts support your position? There is a single line concerning your assertion in a three page condemnation! Nothing about violating parole, except the earlier injunction that didn't mention "twisting the scriptures" at all, only the theory itself. Perhaps you could quote me exactly what passage gives you the impression that the impetus for the injunction was the scripture wrangling and not publishing a scientific theory that contradicted the church's then interpretation of the word of God.
Also on that site, it mentions when the church formally recognized Galileo's model as accurate...
posted
Oh, and when I say I'm on your side, I meant that, while I believe gay people should have a right to be joined in the same way straight people are legally, I don't think religious people should have to change their beliefs to reflect the culture at large. The whole thing about Galileo seems rather silly. It's pretty clear from the injunctions and such that the "heresy" he was accused of was his science, not his scriptural justification, though I'm sure that pissed the cardinals off, too.
posted
The three page condemnation is about a violation of the injunction - it's very clear from context that violation of that injunction is the reason for imprisonment: "the said book was diligently examined and found to violate explicitly the above-mentioned injunction given to you;"
The injunction was designed to inform Gallileo what he couldn't do. He was being prevented from doing more than the act which led to the crime - it was designed to help repair the damage done by his glossing of the scriptures.
quote: At the beginning of 1615, the Inquisition received a complaint against Galileo, on account of the liberties he had taken in interpreting Scripture in his letter to Castelli. An official Church investigation found nothing offensive to the Catholic faith in the letter. The matter could have been settled then and there, were it not for additional complaints made against Galileo regarding his writings and utterances in support of the theory according to which the earth revolves around the sun. At this stage, the threat against Galileo was not great, because Copernicanism had not yet been prohibited by the Church. In fact, the main bone of contention was the status of the heliocentric theory, and whether it would be deemed to contradict the Christian Catholic faith? This declaration would have meant prohibition of the theory and would have prevented any possibility of continued attempts to determine it. It should be remembered that up until 1615, more than seventy years after the publication of Copernicus' theory, Catholics had not been prohibited from holding this theory.
Galileo traveled to Rome in order to try to exert his influence with regard to two issues. He wished to challenge the personal accusations leveled against him, rumors of which had reached him (the investigation was conducted in secrecy) and to influence the Church not to ban the Copernican theory. He succeeded in his first mission, the complaints against him being dismissed without trial, but failed in the second. In February 1616, a special Theological Advisory Committee determined that the heliocentric theory contradicts the Catholic faith. With regard to the claim that the sun lies motionless at the center of the world, the committee determined that it is: "Philosophically (i.e., scientifically) foolish and absurd, and is considered official heresy because it explicitly contradicts the meaning of Scripture in many places, in terms of the verbal significance of the words and in terms of the accepted interpretation and understanding of the Church Fathers and the Doctors of Theology."The claim that the earth revolves around the sun was considered only "a mistake of faith."
Considering that the site is likely misstating what happened in 1992 because, in point of fact, Gallielo was wrong and everyone knew this by 1992, I'm not going to accept it's paraphrases.
Galileo said that the sun was immovable. The sun orbits in the galaxy. Note that only the part about the Sun being motionless was considered "absurd" or "heresy." The other portion was a "mistake of faith," a much less serious offense.
posted
The quote you posted was interesting, but I fail to see its relevance. From your very own source:
quote:At the beginning of 1615, the Inquisition received a complaint against Galileo, on account of the liberties he had taken in interpreting Scripture in his letter to Castelli. An official Church investigation found nothing offensive to the Catholic faith in the letter. The matter could have been settled then and there, were it not for additional complaints made against Galileo regarding his writings and utterances in support of the theory according to which the earth revolves around the sun.
There wasn't any controversy over the letter itself. It was, rather, the copernican model that was the problem. In fact, your quote seems to support the other side rather nicely, as it points out that the Copernican model was perfectly legal and acceptable until 1615. As the initial injunction was made in 1616, the timeframes seem to suggest the correlation is between Copernican model being deemed heretical and Galileo's injunction.
BTW, the injunction Galileo violated, bringing about his arrest, ALSO makes no mention whatsoever of the "scripture glossing." Here it is in its entirety!
quote:[The file report begins with a reference to the Pope's decree of February 25, 1616:] His Holiness has directed the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine to summon before him the said Galileo and admonish him to abandon the said opinion; and, in case of his refusal to obey, the Commissary of the Holy Office is to enjoin him, before notary and witnesses, a command to abstain altogether from defending this opinion and doctrine and even discussing it....
Friday, the twenty-sixth. At the palace, the usual residence of Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo, having been summoned and being present before the said Lord Cardinal, was, in the presence of the Most Reverend Michelangelo Segizi of Lodi, of the order of Preachers, Commissary-General of the Holy Office, by the said Cardinal, warned of the error of the aforesaid opinion and admonished to abandon it; and immediately thereafter, before me and before witnesses, the Lord Cardinal being present, the said Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves; nor further to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsover, verbally or in writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him by the Holy Office; which injunction the said Galileo acquiesced in and promised to obey. Done at Rome, in the place aforesaid, in the presence of R. Badino Nores, of Nicosia in the kingdom of Cyprus, and Agostino Mongardo, from a place in the Abbey of Rose in the diocese of Montepulciano, members of the household of said Cardinal, witnesses.
If it only meant to cease his Copernican teachings in addition to stopping his heretical scripture wrangling, you would thing the wrangling would at least be mentioned here.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, "which appears to contradict Scripture". It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena -- an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes -- but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:
I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.
By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time prohibited, as well as the "Epitome" of Kepler, but in each instance only donec corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact.
posted
Dag, I read your source and it doesn't support your position either. The only place it even mentions Galileo's possible misuse of scripture is here:
quote:At the beginning of 1615, the Inquisition received a complaint against Galileo, on account of the liberties he had taken in interpreting Scripture in his letter to Castelli. An official Church investigation found nothing offensive to the Catholic faith in the letter.
There was an accusation brought against him, but it was deemed meritless. Where else does either your source or Beren's primary source support that the reason Galileo was imprisioned by the Inquisition was because of theological improprieties?
They both seem to say that this letter was the primary piece of evidence against Galileo and was the crux of his treatment:
quote:At the palace of the usual residence of the said Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Bellarmine and in the chambers of His most Illustrious Lordship, and fully in the presence of the Reverend Father Michelangelo Segizzi of Lodi, O.P. and Commissary General of the Holy Office, having summoned the above-mentioned Galileo before himself, the same Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal warned Galileo that the above-mentioned opinion was erroneous and that he should abandon it; and thereafter, indeed immediately, before me and witnesses, the Most-Illustrious Lord Cardinal himself being also present still, the aforesaid Father Commissary, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, ordered and enjoined the said Galileo, who was himself still present, to abandon completely the above-mentioned opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; otherwise the Holy Office would start proceedings against him. The same Galileo acquiesced in this injunction and promised to obey.
Done in Rome at the place mentioned above, in the presence, as witnesses, of the Reverend Badino Nores of Nicosia in the kingdom of Cyprus and Agostino Mongardo from the Abbey of Rose in the diocese of Montepulciano, both belonging to the household of the said Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal.
So, the only argument I could see is that he wasn't imprisioned specifically for teaching a heliocentric view, but because he was disobedient in that he was ordered not to teach it and then he did. That's pretty much what you've been arguing, except that you were characterizing the injunction as based on theological trespasses and considering both Beren's source and your own, this view seems to be untenable.
This is a view also supported by reading through Galileo's deposition. There is no mention of any misuses of Scripture. The entire thing centers around whether the earth is the center of the universe or the sun is. Galileo's recantation also doesn't mention anything at all directly to do with scripture, only about whether he actually held the Copernican system to be truth or just interesting speculation.
Again, where is the evidence that even suggests that the primary complaint was because of his use of scripture?
Also, I've got to take objection to your repeated assertion that Galileo being condemned for theological indiscretions makes the Church look as bad as him being condemned for scientific theories. That's ridiculous. In one case, the Church would exercisizing it's perogative, perhaps overly zealously, in matters of faith. In the other, they would be intruding into observable reality and telling people what they could witness for themselves and verify would get them tortured if they dared tell anyone about it. There's a very big difference between these two conditions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Galileo asserted his theory was true. He asserted that scripture should be reinterpreted in light of this truth. He DID reinterpret the scripture. This is the first item that was brought to the attention of the Inquisition.
posted
Dag, You haven't made a case for scriptural misuse being the primary case at all. The only evidence that you've offered is your say so, which is contradicted by the sources you link to support this assertion. Show me one place with reputable information that what you're saying is correct.
edit:
quote:He asserted that scripture should be reinterpreted in light of this truth. He DID reinterpret the scripture. This is the first item that was brought to the attention of the Inquisition.
Where are you getting this from? I haven't seen any evidence of it. The quote you provided above about the need to reinterpret scripture was neither definite - "If .... then...." nor was it made by Galileo, but by Cardinal Bellarmine.
posted
As far as I can tell, the accusations against Galileo worked this way:
The Church held the Ptolemaic system to be the correct, absolute truth as supported by the Bible. Copernicus propsed another model, which Galileo was supporting. However, there was agitation over this, and in 1615 the Chruch ruled that, according to the Bible, the Copernican system could not be absolutely true and thus saying that it was thus denying the authority of the Bible and was therefore heresy. Galileo was held by many people thus to be a heretic, which he went to Rome to protest. He was interviewed by Cardinal Bellarmine who told him as long as he held the Copernican model as only a supposition (i.e. working as if it was true, but not actually believing it was true) then there was no reason to accuse him of heresy. However, Galileo later published a book discussion both systems and showing how the Copernican system was superior to the Ptolemaic, and was therefor held to be teaching that the Copernican system was absolutely true. After being imprisioned and threatened with torture, he retreated from this view and instead said that he was only still holding the Copernican model as a supposition.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, so you deny that what was linked to by Beren was the actual injunction??? Why? What reason do you have to doubt that, considering it is on the University of Missouri Law School website? If we are going to doubt any source, I would think it should be New Advent, a Catholic Encyclopedia that seems rather apologetically inclined toward the inquisition in this matter. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let's accept both Beren's and your sources as accurate.
You can't just post that "the fact remains x" and expect to be taken seriously. All the sources you HAVE posted don't support your position! Again, from your own source, New Advent:
quote:But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then universally believed to be the supreme authority in matters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural; and therefore heretical.
There you have it. According to New Advent, it was the doctrine itself, and not their interpretation of scripture in light of it, that caused trouble with the church.
edit
Good post Squicky. That about sums it up as I see it, too.
posted
LadyDove ~ Thanks. I haven't seen you around that much, I hope you post more...
demosthenes ~ Thanks. I've often been compared to Woody Allen, but not in a good way.
MrSquicky ~ That's a good summary.
Dag ~ Like Beverly said, most of us grew up with a certain impression of what happened to Galileo. Thanks for showing us the important nuances and the Catholic perspective.
I will reply with some of my thoughts later, when my third cup of coffee kicks in.
In the mean time, enjoy this song from Amy Grant, which is playing in my mind the entire time I'm reading this thread:
In the year of fourteen ninety-two When Columbus sailed the ocean blue Had he landed on India's shore You might never have come to knock on my door Who needs a rhyme or a reason? Some dreams were made to find So I know that I must follow
(Chorus:) Ask me just how much I love you You are starlight, I'm Galileo Even on the darkest night, oh I will find the shining light of our love
[ September 08, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick - it's on this very page: "At the beginning of 1615, the Inquisition received a complaint against Galileo, on account of the liberties he had taken in interpreting Scripture in his letter to Castelli. An official Church investigation found nothing offensive to the Catholic faith in the letter."
From Beren's linked site, right above the wording of the injunction: "The original admonition document is missing. A transcribed report exists in the Inquisition file. It is a key matter of dispute whether Galileo was actually enjoined from discussing Copernican theory, as the transcribed report--discovered in 1633--indicates. Scholars have questioned the authenticity of the report, arguing that the procedures described did not comport with established forms and that the substance was not consistent with what we know of events of 1616."
posted
Dag, Here's the part of that quote that I don't think you're taking into account:
quote:An official Church investigation found nothing offensive to the Catholic faith in the letter.
This is not evidence that he was in trouble because of reinterpreting the scriptures. It says that some people said that he was, the Church looked into it, and said that they had no problem with what he was doing. How do you go from there to saying that the Church was upset with him for twisting the Bible?
edit: To be fair, idemo, there is a note right above the injuction. It's hardly undoubtedly an accurate copy.
To further be fair, Dag, there's no indication that almost everyone disagrees that this is not the real injuction, just that is disputed. And you've been claiming to know exactly what the injuction was, which as this is only record we even have of it (disputed or not) and it contradicts what you were saying, is pretty untenable.
And that's leaving out the point that while scholars aren't sure if that is an accurate copy of the original injuction, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that it definitely the transcription of the original injunction used by the Inquisition. Even if it's not an accurate copy, it's what was used by the Inquisition. I don't know, I don't think that dismissing it is intellectually responsible.
posted
So your position hinges absolutely on a missing document, while the vast preponderance of the evidence, including the sources you cite, supports Galileo's arrest for his dissolution of the Copernican theory as fact. It really seems like inquisitional apologetics and revisionist history to me, Dag. Can you understand why I don't believe you? Can you even see the tenuousness of your position?
posted
Because that investigation was what led to the committee that ultimately determined that it was contrary to scripture.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, my position does not hinge on a missing document. Injunctions list the prohibited behavior. If that is the injunction, it prohibits Galileo from teaching a doctrine he had linked to a heretical view of the scriptures.
quote:It really seems like inquisitional apologetics and revisionist history to me, Dag. Can you understand why I don't believe you? Can you even see the tenuousness of your position?
Having been subject to 400 years of revisionist history about the Catholic Church, I can definitely tell you this isn't it.
Edit: And let's face it, the one document that isn't someone else's interpretation of events and who's veracity isn't questioned specifically mentions the scriptural liberties.
posted
Dag, That's not what your link says. The investigation over Galileo's possible heretical statements is not a part of the Copernican thing. Here's the sentence that comes right after the part you're quoteing:
quote:The matter could have been settled then and there, were it not for additional complaints made against Galileo regarding his writings and utterances in support of the theory according to which the earth revolves around the sun
The stuff about the Copernican theory were additional complaints to the possible misue of scripture ones and not part of these complaints themselves. The Church received complaint X, which they dismissed and then they received complaint Y. X and Y are different complaints. The commonalities in your source is that they were both about Galileo, not the contents of the complaint.
And again, there is no evidence in anything you have provided that the Church ever held Galileo as misusing scripture. The only thing you have is that he was accused of it and the Church dismissed the charges. All of the linked thinks describe the situation in pretty much the way I said.
edit: You may have missed my edit from my last post above. Pertty much I said that even if the copy of the injunction used by the Inquisition is disputed as being an accurate copy of the original injunction, there doesn't seem to be any doubt that it was the copy that the Inquisition used. It's right there in the records of the Inquisition.
posted
No, it prohibits Galileo from teaching the doctrine period! It makes no mention of his having linked it to a non-sanctioned interpretation of scripture. If that was their main concern, you would think they would have mentioned it.
BTW, can you point out just exactly what scripture Galileo is supposed to have twisted? Because from the various sources, I can point out the scripture that supposedly contradicts Copernicism entirely. It's in Joshua. What the inquisition appears to be saying is not that Galileo's interpretations contradict accepted dogma, but that the theory itself does. After all, if the sun is stationary, how could it stand still for an hour? It clearly moves across the sky in scripture. The inquisition seems to have been concerned mainly with this doctrine which, because of the scripture in Joshua, they had deemed heretical, spreading to general acceptance. That's what all the actual sources, including yours, say.
quote:Because that investigation was what led to the committee that ultimately determined that it was contrary to scripture.
That isn't a causal relationship, it's a timeline. If I'm arrested for possesion of Marijuana, and while they are searching my car pursuant to arrest they find a dead body with my named carved on it's chest, but no marijuana, I'll be convivted of murder, but acquitted of possesion. You can't then say that my possesion of marijuana is the REAL reason I'm in prison. The same applies here. He was acquitted of twisting scripture, only to be convicted of preaching a heretical scientific doctrine (though a decade or so separate the two.) What you seem to be saying is that anybody other than Galileo could have taught Copernican astronomy without any problems from the inquisition, and I just don't see any support for that in your documentation.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It mentions glossing as a veritable footnote to the whole rest of the document, which excoriates Galileo for holding the doctrine itself.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What you seem to be saying is that anybody other than Galileo could have taught Copernican astronomy without any problems from the inquisition, and I just don't see any support for that in your documentation.
Here's the support, from the New Advent link above:
quote:By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time prohibited, as well as the "Epitome" of Kepler, but in each instance only donec corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact. We learn further that with permission these works might be read in their entirety, by "the learned and skilful in the science" (Remus to Kepler). Galileo seems, says von Gebler, to have treated the decree of the Inquisition pretty coolly, speaking with satisfaction of the trifling changes prescribed in the work of Copernicus. He left Rome, however, with the evident intention of violating the promise extracted from him, and, while he pursued unmolested his searches in other branches of science, he lost no opportunity of manifesting his contempt for the astronomical system which he had promised to embrace.
From another link posted by Beren:
quote:Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
posted
Dag, Are you saying that the authenticity of the records of the Inquisition (which the copy of the injuction that we're talking about were entered into) are in doubt?
Also, the document that you're holding up as being the only authentic source mentions scriptural glossing once, in an ancilliary context and proceeds to identify the principle terms of the injuction, namely, that he was not to teach in any way whatever the Copernican system. Are you really basing you're entire argument on one, additional statement in face of all of the things indentifying the main complaint as Galileo's teaching of the Coperincan system as true? Every source essentially says that "We're doing this because you are teaching the Copernican model as true, which is the main thing you were prohibited from doing from this injuction." Galileo's recantation said "I never held that the Copernican system was true. I only held is as an interesting supposition?" No where in any of this stuff is there any mention of misuse of Scripture.
From the document you are claiming is definitely authentic:
quote:We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in our presence you abjure, curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church in the manner and form we will prescribe to you.
It even defines exactly what they are calling heresy, which is holding the Copernican view as true.
posted
Now you see why I look at the New advent source dubiously, peppered as it is with character judgements on Galileo. As promised, however, I will treat it as accurate.
What seems to me to be the proper interpretation of that clip you just posted, is that the church insisted on Galileo and Kepplerqualifying their theories as false, but useful. A modern equivelant would be the conflicting models of the electron. Is it a particle, or a wave? Who knows, but we'll treat it whichever way makes more sense for each occasion. Many christians still say they have no problem with their children being taught evolution "as long as it's presented as a theory." In other words, the inquisition was fine with Galileo presenting his copernican model as long as he included the caveat that it wasn't really the way things actually work in the real world, but simply a conceptual model that would help in astronomy.
quote: the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact
It also restricted anybody who wasn't versed in astronomy from reading the books at all.
quote:We learn further that with permission these works might be read in their entirety, by "the learned and skilful in the science.
The rest of the above quote is simply character attacks on Galileo that, true or false, are irrelevant to this discussion.
However, notably absent is any support for the idea that it was Galileo's scriptural justifications for his theory that got him in trouble.
posted
Dag, The link from Beren isn't saying what you seem to be saying that it is. It isn't accusing Galileo of messing with Scripture. It's talking about him asserting the heliocentric view as absolutely true, which necessarily intrudes on Biblical accuracy. Any scientist who taught the the heliocentric view was going to be pushing into the same problem.
Agsin, this is the essence of the complaint against Galileo an the meat of his recantation. He told by Cardinal Bellarmine to only hold the doctrine as a supposition. When he recanted, this is exactly what he said.
The quote doesn't have anything to do with Galileo twisting the scriptures, only that he proposed a theory as absolutely true that disagreed with the current interpretation of the scriptures.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Just a bit of clarification, that is a link to Catholic.com. It was originally provided by Dag in the New Vatican Document to Confront Feminism thread. I don't want to steal someone else's credit y'know. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren, we were referring to the original link to the U of Missourri site with the trial documents.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eek, sorry. I thought you were replying to this post from Dag:
quote: From another link posted by Beren:
quote: --------------------------------------------- Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt. --------------------------------------------------
And let's face it, the one document that isn't someone else's interpretation of events and who's veracity isn't questioned specifically mentions the scriptural liberties.
I have no problem limiting this debate to primary documents who's "veracity isn't questioned" (i.e. the Papal Condemnation).
Is scriptural liberties mentioned by the Papal Admonition? Yes.
Does the Papal Admonition support your argument that Galileo's scriptural interpretations were the primary, if not exclusive, justification for Galileo's injunction? No.
The opening paragraph of the Papal Admonition clearly lists scriptural glossing as one of the several accusations made against Galileo in the first hearing which issued him the injunction.
However, scriptural glossing was not listed as the first reason nor was it highlighted as the primary reason.
quote: Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for
holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion;
for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true;
and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning:
and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture.
posted
Beren, could the scriptural glossing have been put in context without the preceeding whereas? To me, it reads as a progression leading up to the issuance of the injunction:
Galileo did A, B, then C. The way I read it, they stopped adding descriptions of his acts once they were culpable. So the stopping point indicates the most serious charge. (I am interpreting the clause about the "divers propositions" letter as a description of evidence produced at trial, the ":" and the changing diction make it hard to nail down.)
Now, my interpretation is colored by the fact that I know what a no-no this was. Personal interpretation of the scritpture was at the heart of much of the Reformation (I consider the availability of Bibles to laypersons to be the Reformation's greatest accomplishment), and in this period the Reformation is still a raw, open wound for the Church. Read the glossing line again ("glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning") and put it in context with the reformation.
The rest of the document is spent showing that he did indeed violate the injunction and so is dedicated to showing he was teaching heliocentrism and that his defenses (the certificate and the license) did not excuse him.
quote: The elements of the crime for which he was convicted were: 1) Improper interpretation of the scripture 2) with intent to propogate 3) a "false" doctrine.
The actus reus is improper interpretation of the scripture. The punishment (actually, remedial action), was to ban Galileo from propogating the "false" doctrine which had now become tied to the improper interpretation of scripture.
Strictly speacking, if all three points above are indeed the elements of the crime then the actus reas is made up of all of them.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
